Rossi Lugano/early demo's revisited. (technical)

I think the main question is why setting up (also with Levi's collaboration) such a sloppy yet precise test when there would have been much more convincing ways to describe one that produced abundant excess heat from LENR?

This is also an important question which deserves some attention, but the "why" comes after the "what". One thing at a time, please.

A few months ago I told you that this story is like a very complicate puzzle with many missing pieces and even more fake ones (1). To figure out the whole picture we have to assemble small subsets of good pieces, throwing away the bad ones. Now we have assembled two alternative subset of pieces that could be placed on the December 16, 2010 zone. One subset contains pieces like "LENR device", "fully ignition of the reactor", "self-sustaining operation". The pieces of the other subset are "water boiler", "joule effect", "flow stopped to keep boiling the water as long as possible". Before trying to enlarge it by adding more pieces on its contour, we have to place within the frame one of these two subsets. Which one do we chose?

The thermite idea is a canard. Even 'slow thermite goes too fast - because the reaction rate rises with temperature, and in any substantial mass of thermite the temperature rises very fast indeed - not to mention the pressure wave it causes. And slow thermites require high ignition temperatures. Here's an experiment I did showing what happens.

You've put some standard Fe2O3-Al thermite in a small tube, ignited it and of course it went off explosively all at once. It doesn't look like any effort was put into controlling the process.

If a similar solid fuel-oxidizer mixture/blend that reacted in a positive feedback loop with temperature was kept at the verge of igniting, it could operate in an unstable region where it would first appear to be "self-sustaining", and eventually run away if temperatures were allowed to increase over a certain threshold. For short experimental runs this behavior could give the impression of anomalous LENR heating.

My main point here is that the reported mass and volume of the E-Cat for those early tests was such that, at least from an external look, chemical heating couldn't be ruled out.

The third test (18-hour test) was apparently long enough to also rule out such reactions, according to the information that Levi provided in February 2011.

[...] One subset contains pieces like "LENR device", "fully ignition of the reactor", "self-sustaining operation". The pieces of the other subset are "water boiler", "joule effect", "flow stopped to keep boiling the water as long as possible". Before trying to enlarge it by adding more pieces on its contour, we have to place within the frame one of these two subsets. Which one do we chose?

Your analysis throws away the possibility of chemical heating and input power mismeasurements which as a skeptical explanation are far more likely than the large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy that you've been suggesting since 2011. Chemical reactions can also be ignited and self-sustain; I'm not sure why you find these terms funny.

You've put some standard Fe2O3-Al thermite in a small tube, ignited it and of course it went off explosively all at once. It doesn't look like any effort was put into controlling the process.

Not quite correct. The intention was to show that once an energetic process like the thermite reaction begins (at quite a high temperature) then it is impossible to control the reaction rate. This is because heat cannot escape the body of the reactants fast enough to slow it down. It is very simple thermochemistry. There may be more controllable methods of creating exothermy but in general they are not sufficiently energy-dense to be of interest.

... "There may be more controllable methods of creating exothermy but in general they are not sufficiently energy dense to be of interest."

False - chemistry is a wide field and AR is a skilled amateur - thermite solution is from not skilled ones. You need a positive gamma log from a not salted device to be sure. Approximate/wrong calorimetry of 30 kg black boxes don't suffice.

Well, you have the problem of supplying the oxidant for a start. Apart from that, these particular borides were developed in part for use as rocket fuel additives. Not a satisfactory candidate for an uncontrolled reaction space.

I don't think this would really be much different for a novel process taking place in a sealed chamber containing metals and pressurized hydrogen at a few bar, rising several hundreds °C over room temperature and producing therein at least several kW of excess heat. I think some skeptics actually used to call some of these devices pipe bombs.

Your analysis throws away the possibility of chemical heating and input power mismeasurements which as a skeptical explanation are far more likely than the large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy that you've been suggesting since 2011.

First, I'm not skeptic. Skepticism entails doubts, and I have no doubts that the Ecat, as any other LENR device, never produced any excess heat. Sorry. Second, I don't understand the connection between the shutting off of a water tap in the middle of a test and a "large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy".

We are discussing now - since a week - a well precise and much more limited argument, that is how to interpret the few experimental evidences available for the December 16, 2011 test, known as "Test 1". This topic was introduced by you (1), and you expressed your lack of understanding about what went on (2).

Thanks to your nice othogonalization of the original photo, everybody can see that at about 17:46, after having reached an almost stationary level, Tout (yellow line) starts to sharply increase again. Contemporary, also Tin (blue line) starts to increase, approaching asymptotically Tamb (red line). This behavior can be easily explained with a stopping of the water flow.

I already asked you if you have other hypotheses that could explain these trends. Now you are talking about "chemical heating and input power mismeasurements". Fine, I'm curious. Can you tell me, please, how they could have determined the Tin increase?

Quote

Chemical reactions can also be ignited and self-sustain; I'm not sure why you find these terms funny.

I didn't say they are funny, and I was not referring to alleged "chemical reactions". They were excluded, as any other already known energy source, by the conclusions of the calorimetric report:

The amount of power and energy produced during both tests is indeed impressive and, together with the self sustaining state reached during [Test 1] could be an indication that the system is working as a new type of energy source of unknown origin. The short duration of the tests suggests that is important to make more long and complete experiments. An appropriate scientific program will be draw.

McKubre said in his ICCF21 speech, the LENR community does *not* collaborate, coordinate, and communicate now, nor have they ever.

In the occasion of the ICCF19 held in Padua, he wrote a series of 5 posts dedicated to the history of ICCFs (http://www.iccf19.com/history1.html ). Very interesting. Unfortunately they are no longer available on internet, I hope you have saved a copy. Text and photos gave the impression of a very well integrated and solid group of people. So, I don't know what he was referring to at ICCF21.

Quote

Yet you are saying they did exactly that in 2010/2011 to turn a failed Ecat test, into a "success".

Not exactly. Let me clarify a couple of things.

First, about the "failed Ecat tests", I didn't say they had failed, I'd rather say they were faked. It's different. You have a failed test when you expect a positive outcome, which doesn't occur. This was not the case with the Ecat tests. Consider, for example, the Test 1 I'm discussing with *can*. If the water flow was stopped in the middle of the test, but it was reported that it flowed until the end, it means that it was well known in advance that the tested device was not able to work as claimed.

Second, about the role of the LENR community in the Ecat affair. It's clear that only a few of them have actively participated in the organization and promotion this initiative, not the entire community. But after the Bologna demo, and for a long time later, it was very difficult to hear a voice of skepticism or disagreement coming from the LENR community that denounced the inconsistencies of those incredible proclaimed data.

The support of some, and the silence of the others, helped the Ecat initiative in getting the financial success that now provides the major economic help to the LENR community.

Second, about the role of the LENR community in the Ecat affair. It's clear that only a few of them have actively participated in the organization and promotion this initiative, not the entire community. But after the Bologna demo, and for a long time later, it was very difficult to hear a voice of skepticism or disagreement coming from the LENR community that denounced the inconsistencies of those incredible proclaimed data.

The support of some, and the silence of the others, helped the Ecat initiative in getting the financial success that now provides the major economic help to the LENR community.

Ascoli,

There are many innocent reasons the *few* within the field would not express their skepticism after the demos. Jed explained that too you before, and maybe when he comes back from vacation he will explain again. Conspiracies are very hard to accomplish. The more involved, the harder it gets. Especially so when you are talking about, in most cases, older, well established scientists with little to gain, and everything to lose.

There was no conspiracy, plan, coordination, or organized attempt by the UOB scientists, and the select few leaders in LENR to cover up, or ignore these test results, in order to attract funding for the field.

Second, I don't understand the connection between the shutting off of a water tap in the middle of a test and a "large-scale scientific fraud-collusion-conspiracy".

If Levi intentionally shut off the water tap to produce falsified data, that would be scientific fraud.

If several key people at UniBo (or perhaps most of those who attended the January demo) were aware of this yet had nothing to say against it, that means they colluded with Levi and Rossi towards producing and disseminating false results.

If people high up in various international governmental departments instructed Rossi—and by extension all other people involved directly or indirectly with these tests—in acting up in order to draw in or pull away public opinion from/to *something* (what exactly it's not clear, but I think you've suggested something along these lines in the past), that would become a full-fledged conspiracy.

I already asked you if you have other hypotheses that could explain these trends. Now you are talking about "chemical heating and input power mismeasurements". Fine, I'm curious. Can you tell me, please, how they could have determined the Tin increase?

The Tin sensor was located in the vicinity of a metallic inlet tube located close to the portion of the device where the apparently anomalous reaction supposedly occurred (where the H2 inlet ends in). I would expect the sudden additional heat (reported ~10 kW vs 1.1 kW of the heaters) to be conducted to surrounding parts of the setup. See attached images.

Images

In the occasion of the ICCF19 held in Padua, he wrote a series of 5 posts dedicated to the history of ICCFs (http://www.iccf19.com/history1.html ). Very interesting. Unfortunately they are no longer available on internet, I hope you have saved a copy. Text and photos gave the impression of a very well integrated and solid group of people. So, I don't know what he was referring to at ICCF21.

I don't think this would really be much different for a novel process taking place in a sealed chamber containing metals and pressurized hydrogen at a few bar, rising several hundreds °C over room temperature and producing therein at least several kW

Well, depends on whether the rate of the reaction behind this ‘novel process’ exponentially increases with pressure/temp?

There was no conspiracy, plan, coordination, or organized attempt by the UOB scientists, and the select few leaders in LENR to cover up, or ignore these test results, in order to attract funding for the field.

Cold fusion researchers cannot even organize a walk in the park without someone wandering off, causing a commotion and precipitating a National Park Service search and rescue operation. I mean that literally. (Name omitted to protect the guilty.) Even by the low, low standards of academic professors, these people are disorganized and socially and politically inept. There is no plan. There is no conspiracy. They could not conspire their way out of a paper bag. I wish they were capable of such legerdemain!

Unfortunately, the main opponents such as Robert Park, John Huizenga and the editors at Sci. Am. were politically skilled and well connected. They easily destroyed the reputations of the researchers. It was like taking candy from a baby. The researchers seldom responded. When they did respond, their methods resembled the worst military tactics of World War I. They attacked the enemy strongholds with inadequate preparation. It was like walking into machine gun fire instead of using tanks, surprise and infiltration. I have in mind things like the 2004 DoE review. Ed Storms and others warned them against this.

If Levi intentionally shut off the water tap to produce falsified data, that would be scientific fraud.

You are going too far. For the moment, we are discussing whether the water flux halted, or not.

Quote

The Tin sensor was located in the vicinity of a metallic inlet tube located close to the portion of the device where the apparently anomalous reaction supposedly occurred (where the H2 inlet ends in). I would expect the sudden additional heat (reported ~10 kW vs 1.1 kW of the heaters) to be conducted to surrounding parts of the setup. See attached images.

Oh yes, me too. In case of a sudden onset of genuine or fake additional 10 kW, the external surface of the Ecat should have become much hotter, so I would have expected a quite rapid and evident increase of Tamb, but it didn't happen, it remained nearly flat.

On the contrary, I wouldn't have expected any increase of the temperature measured by a sensor inserted in a rubber hose many cm upstream from the closest metallic part of the Ecat, and immersed in the coolant flowing at few cm/s.

In any case, the experimental evidence shows that Tin was asymptotically approaching Tamb. There is no possibility at all that this very specific trend can be induced by a heat flux emanating from the Ecat. It is the clear sign that the temperature of the water inside the tube is going to equalize the temperature of the surrounding ambient, and this can happen only if the water is still. This is the more simple, straightforward and congruent explanation.

I haven't still understood if you exclude it, and, in case, why, and which specific alternative explanation you propose.